The new Rwanda Plan

You’re talking about the European Court of Human Rights fancythat. Not currently involved and as I have already said, we need to remove the UK from their jurisdiction.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/01/rishi-sunak-wont-allow-foreign-court-to-block-rwanda-plan

*Mr Sunak told Dame Andrea she was 'absolutely right that we must do everything we can to secure our borders and ensure that those who come here illegally do not have the ability to stay'.

'That's why our Rwanda scheme and legislation is so important and what I've said repeatedly and will happily say to her again is I will not let a foreign court block our ability to send people to Rwanda when the time comes,' he added.*

Which higher court are you referring to fancythat? The House of Lords (not a court) is still debating the original Rwanda bill.

Chocolatelovinggran I disagree. We need to modify the human rights legislation to prevent abuse by asylum seekers.

We should all be very concerned about plans to dismiss human rights. Our children and grandchildren might be at risk.

There is a higher court involved.

Sunak is making himself look very silly, trying to hide that. Or having silly ideas to try and get around it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13192731/Tories-deride-Rishi-Sunaks-plan-pay-Channel-migrants-3-000-Rwanda-ex-minister-saying-admission-deportation-scheme-failed-PM-faces-new-calls-Britain-quit-human-rights-rules-instead.html

Oh a lot cheaper I should think GSM.

Actually paying them to go is probably cheaper than paying the abominable human rights lawyers who would fight against forcible deportation at the taxpayer’s expense and have prison officers, Border Force officials etc charged with assault.

The police use force all the time.
Security guards use force.
Courts must use force sometimes.

Human rights lawyers have different powers to "ordinary" lawyers?

Casdon please stand for election. Your idea sounds interesting.

Thank you GSM that makes sense in a nonsense kind of way.

Fact is,,,mail online..French escort vessel picks up migrant dingy 2 miles from French coast then takes it across channel so that asylum seekers can be delivered to Dover, 12 days ago

I would imagine that the people smugglers, currently pocketing millions from the small boats, will simply expand their business to Rwanda and be waiting to collect the £3000 and send someone off on a longer more dangerous journey back here.
Maybe it's another example of inspiring private enterprise.

I think it’s down to human rights - forcibly getting them onto a plane would likely involve committing an assault. I can just see the human rights lawyers queuing up for business. The whole thing is ridiculous - these people are very aware of their rights and would be sure to cause a great fuss. So we end up bribing them to go quietly. If they have been refused asylum then as I have already said there’s a good reason for that.

I don't understand . If someone's been refused asylum why do we need to pay them in order to get them to leave?

Germanshepherdsmum

But what would you do halfpint, if asylum has been refused and the policy is not to return the person to their country of origin because it’s deemed dangerous? Just leave them roaming the streets here?

There are some in France who are being returned and there
are some roaming the streets and others who have asylum.
The problem is not just with the U.K. It is a constant talking
point here as well.

So let’s be an illegal immigrant and the UK will give us £3000
Form an orderly queue Grans!

The same Kevin Hollinlake who has been doing the media rounds saying Frank Hester is both a racist and not a racist seems to think it will deter people from trying to come to the UK in the first place.

So I don't think anybody would try and come here just to get £3,000 to go to Rwanda.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68550404

I see what you are saying Casdon. The BBC article touches on this:

According to official statistics, 19,253 people were voluntarily removed from the UK last year. Of these, 3,319 received a "reintegration package" or flights paid by the Home Office - the highest number since 2010.

The Home Office says payments under the current scheme "can pay for" temporary accommodation in the destination country, or education costs, or the cost of setting up a business.

Responding to the government's latest announcement, Labour's shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said: "Even government ministers are finally recognising that their Rwanda scheme has no chance of succeeding, so they're resorting to paying people to go there instead."

He said Rwanda had "very limited capacity" for accepting people and that the government should "make clear how many people they expect to send on this basis, and what the cost will be.

I’ve been thinking more about this. I’m no expert at all, but the government working with an aid agency to enable failed asylum seekers to build small businesses in countries who are willing to take them if they bring money into the country with them might be a more sustainable model that would give them a chance of building new lives instead of hoping for asylum somewhere in Europe?

I still don’t understand what the deterrent is though Germanshepherdsmum. If they are given £3000 they could make their way from Rwanda across Europe, maybe settle in another European country if they are granted asylum there, which they probably wouldn’t be, or get on another boat and end up back in the UK and start the whole process again if that’s what they chose to do?

Germanshepherdsmum

Maybe France will grant them asylum - but if they have been refused here it will have been for good reason. We can’t have people roaming the streets who have failed to pass the tests for asylum.

Absolutely!

Surely the problem with the plan is exactly what WWM posted?
The money will be accepted and the asylum seekers simply return to Europe - as in Monopoly, where you collect cash for passing go. Why would they not?
How much has Rwanda had so far?

It’s utterly bonkers!!! We’ve paid millions - the only people to go have been two ministers, and sadly they had return tickets! Also since this failed scheme was set up we’ve accepted TEN Rwandan asylum seekers, now we are going to pay failed asylum seekers to go there? Sometimes I feel as if I’ve entered a parallel universe!

But what would you do halfpint, if asylum has been refused and the policy is not to return the person to their country of origin because it’s deemed dangerous? Just leave them roaming the streets here?

Apparently the reason they can’t be sent to their country of origin is if it is unsafe to do so. In which case they would probably win their asylum claim if they appealed anyway.
This is all nonsense anyway. It won’t happen. Sunak is desperate to get someone on a plane to Rwanda no matter what the cost to the taxpayer and our international reputation so that he can claim he has fulfilled one of his ‘pledges’ before the Election.